Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Ukraine CRUMBLES Russian Forces Swarm Towards Pokrovsk" video.

  1. This is how propaganda works in the West: Make molehills out of mountains and mountains out of molehills. It still has the appearance of fact-based reporting, but in a war along a 1,000 km front, skirmish-sized actions bear scant resemblance to the strategic situation.
    7
  2.  @philippe2715  Not an expert, either, but I'll put my amateur spin on it: They were forced/induced (Maskirova?) to shift forces to the north by Russian attacks (feints?) along the northern border. Then, maybe they tried to turn a mistake into an advantage, by using those forces to try to use the same trick against the Russians, and provoke them into shifting forces in the East to the Northern front. The alternative would've been to try to shift those forces back to the main front, where they probably (rightly) realize they weren't going to stop the juggernaut head-on, but they might distract it and turn their blunder into a success. Shifting those forces back to the South would entail a fair amount of attrition. But as Legends is saying, and others have pointed out, Russia has more than sufficient forces, locally, to rally against the Ukrainian incursions.
    3
  3.  @philippe2715  Yes. Logistics. Ukraine might look like they're really starting to win, at first. But you know it's just a matter of time until the pendulum swings back in Russia's favor, and they will end up gobbling some more Ukraine, to create a buffer zone. But let's not forget the $61 billion that the USA gave Zelensky in April. I don't imagine a whole lot of it actually finds its way to the front lines, but even a fraction of that amount can build a lot of drones, and I don't think Russia has pushed their air defenses out that far in that area. They will, now, but it'll be gradual.
    2
  4.  @xblade11230  "Conscripts are only allowed during war, and Russia has technically not declared war yet it's still a smo on paper which puts limits to what troops they can use. Which is why there is such a big push for volunteers." I think if Russia needed to use conscripts on the front lines, it would find a reason to change that policy/rule in about 5 minutes. I think this policy is about the more or less orderly mobilization, growth, and training of their fighting forces. In the near term, it works exactly as you say: The minute they're invaded, hundreds of thousands of former noncombatants are activated. Two years ago, most of them were untrained. Since then, they've had plenty of time to get their basic and advanced training in various specialties. They're still green, which will probably mean heavier losses, but on the other hand, they're fighting on terrain with which they are familiar, and where I imagine there are extensive fortifications and hidden surprises for attackers working in their favor. Also, there's zero moral ambiguity when you're on defense. I think there will be an ongoing push for volunteers, for the reasons you give, but also for the moral force of volunteers compared to conscripts. The West has really messed up by thinking a proxy war would weaken Russia and strengthen the West. What they've done is given an excuse to a superpower to rebuild its forces while sharpening its claws on a weaker opponent, with the latest western weaponry, albeit in insufficient numbers. Just enough stress to aid mobilization efforts whose progress exceeds their losses by a large margin.
    1